Mohammad Abid v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-32986 of 2018 (O&M) Mohammad Abid

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-33842 of 2018 (O&M) Mosam

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

Date of Decision: September 10, 2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.B.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.227 dated 10.07.2018 under VINEET GULATI 2018.09.11 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Sections 5/13(2), 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

CRM No.M-32986 of 2018 and connected petition -2Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, Section 11 of A.C. Act and Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in this case was registered on the basis of secret information. One Canter bearing registration No.HR55B-4692 was apprehended, wherein 13 Oxen were kept in a cruel manner by tying their mouths and legs with ropes. The vehicle and Oxen were taken into police possession. The present petitioners are stated to have run away from the spot.

The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for investigation or custodial interrogation as recovery has already been effected. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in CRM No.M-32986 of 2018 and order dated 08.08.2018 passed in CRM No.M33842 of 2018 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. September 10, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.09.11 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh